MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386559614 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2023.27161

Economic Evidence for Home and Community Care Investment: The Case for Ontario Personal Support Workers’ Wage Parity

2023· article· en· W4386559614 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Katherine A P Zagrodney, Emily C. King, Deborah Simon, Kathryn Nichol, Sandra McKay

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPublic Health OntarioOntario Medical AssociationMinistry of Health and Long Term Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic shortageInvestment (military)Government (linguistics)BusinessWageHealth careEconomicsEconomic growthLabour economicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The home and community care (HCC) sector is in a health human resource crisis. Particularly concerning is the shortage of personal support workers (PSWs) who provide the majority of HCC. This paper outlines a strategy to mitigate the HCC PSW shortage by applying appropriate funding to HCC and focusing on equal pay between HCC and institutional long-term care facilities' PSWs. Using publicly available data, our calculations estimate substantial government cost-savings from investing in HCC PSWs to increase HCC capacity. Beyond the economic evidence, how such investments would benefit those seeking care are also highlighted.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.237
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207